T1B

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:34 pm**

While this board would crash if ALL the criminality of the (unelected) Bush/Cheney cabal were listed, this thread will provide daily updates of the basic investigations, indictments, and convictions of the administration...as we the people march on to the Nuremberg-like trial that awaits the Chimp and his handlers.

http://www.komotv.com/news/national/6871507.html

A typical reckless over-feeding at the trough

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 092&EDATE=

The Chimp rewards a smear operator with a recess appointment, basically pissing on the constitution, again...

http://www.nbc4.com/news/11516096/detail.html

Rove gets confronted for his malignant actions...

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:55 pm**

mvscal wrote:Recess appointments are an explicitly designated power granted to the President under Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Go fuck yourself.

mvs is right.

Presidents have been doing it for over 200 years.....get over it..

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:06 pm**

No, it's a true crime against the spirit of the republic. And, just as with the the "signing statements" attending legislation, the Chimp has so completely abused the legal mechanism as to render it a slimey tactic at best. And, of course, there are NO comparable comparisons in presidential history.

This Crime Update thread will include acts of moral stench, as well as technical criminality.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:09 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:comparable comparisons

You used a redundant redundancy, you stupid idiot.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:17 pm**

Wrong, Dins, a comparable comparison would simply be, first, a comparison--a recess appointment--that is comparable in its sleaze factor to, say, Bolton or the simlar slimefuck Sam Fox. Get it?

Come with the example, bitch, and don't reduce yourself to a quibbling snit-monger.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:20 pm**

I'll bow to your political intelligence....your one-of-a-kind uniqueness, if you will.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:48 pm**

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, it's a true crime against the spirit of the republic.
The use of an explicitly designated power of office is not a "crime" in spirit or in actuality.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but 'Things You Don't Like' do not qualify as crimes.

Too bad. LTS TURD 2's posting history would have him on death row.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, it's a true crime against the spirit of the republic.
The use of an explicitly designated power of office is not a "crime" in spirit or in actuality.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but 'Things You Don't Like' do not qualify as crimes.

I love it when LTS gets on one of his "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?," over-the-top, completely-without-facts rants.

The fact that several FOUNDERS of the Republic used recess appointments has apparently escaped his cursory knowledge of American history.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:14 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:I'll bow to your political intelligence....your one-of-a-kind uniqueness, if you will.

He's definitely got a certain...panache. Maybe SaladTosser will become a fan?

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:31 am**

POTUS definitely has the right to make recess appointments. But to use that privilege to appoint a financier of a smear campaign makes it very ugly.

But if Bush wants to further portray himself & his party as the party of dirty tricks.....again.....then thanks for the help next year.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:12 am**

PSUFAN wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I'll bow to your political intelligence....your one-of-a-kind uniqueness, if you will.
He's definitely got a certain...panache. Maybe SaladTosser will become a fan?

I'd say he already is.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:35 am**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:POTUS definitely has the right to make recess appointments. But to use that privilege to appoint a financier of a smear campaign makes it very ugly.
No, it doesn't. This is routine. Most ambassadorships are divied out as political plums. It's always done this way.

Yes, plums are given out. Even to campaign contributors. But not to people behind dirty smear campaigns. Your boy just botched it again.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:52 pm**

Looks like he won't be paid much, if at all.

BODE.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Sam Fox can't be paid as envoy to Belgium
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
04/05/2007

Method of appointment means St. Louis businessman must work for free

By Philip Dine

WASHINGTON — The controversial appointment of St. Louis businessman Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium has hit a new wrinkle — he can't be paid, and therefore some question whether his appointment is legal.

President George W. Bush on Wednesday bypassed the normal confirmation process and appointed Fox while the Senate was in recess. Recess appointments are not uncommon, but generally they take place while the nomination is pending and legislators are refusing to act. In this case, the Senate was prepared to vote but because Fox lacked enough support, Bush formally withdrew the appointment.

Because the appointment was withdrawn, Fox can't be paid and will be working for free, White House spokesman Alex Conant told the Post-Dispatch Thursday.

However, the legal staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says that federal statutes prevent someone from working for free for the U.S. government. The law allows an exception if the person signs a letter promising never to sue for past salary, the staff says. But this doesn't apply to jobs with a set salary as is the case with ambassadors, according to the staff.

Senate committee members John Kerry, D-Mass., Chris Dodd, D-Conn. and Robert Casey, D-Penn., asked the General Accountability Office Thursday to rule on the matter.

The White House said Thursday that Fox's appointment is legal. It said he is working without compensation "by operation of the Pay Act."

"He is not volunteering his services in a case where the government would otherwise be required to pay him," the White House said.

Democrats oppose Fox because he gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which castigated Kerry's Vietnam War service during Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign

Posted: **Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:08 pm**

Same ole same ole... Chimp rewarding more criminals + more Repub election fraud. Ho hum.

Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?
by Greg Palast
March 09, 2007

GregPalast.com Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend

BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide. Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.

There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.

But the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn't mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails - potential evidence of a crime - to email addresses ending with the domain name "@GeorgeWBush.com" he sent them to "@GeorgeWBush.ORG," a website run by prankster John Wooden, who owns "GeorgeWBush.org." When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called "Caging" lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.

The Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts, marked "Do not forward." Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city's State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as "suspect" and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these 'cages' captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.

We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn't living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.

Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn't even know it.

And by the way, it's not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas - even if they're Black.

But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting. So several lawyers told us, including Ralph Neas, famed civil rights attorney with People for the American Way.

Griffin himself ducked our cameras, but his RNC team tried to sell us the notion that the caging sheets were, in fact, not illegal voter hit lists, but a roster of donors to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. Republican donors at homeless shelters?

Over the past weeks, Griffin has said he would step down if he had to face Congressional confirmation. However, the President appointed Griffin to the law enforcement post using an odd little provision of the USA Patriot Act that could allow Griffin to skip Congressional questioning altogether.

Therefore, I have a suggestion for Judiciary members. Voting law expert Neas will be testifying today before Conyers' Committee on the topic of illegal voter "disenfranchisement" - the fancy word for stealing elections by denying voters' civil rights.

Maybe Conyers should hold a line-up of suspected vote thieves and let Neas identify the perpetrators. That should be easy in the case of the Caging List Criminal. He'd only have to look for the guy wearing a new shiny lawman's badge.

--------

Read the full story, "Caging Lists: Great White Republicans Take Voters Captive" in Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse: Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales from a White House Gone Wild. The new edition, with a new chapter on Theft of the Election, will be released April 24th (by Penguin/Plume in paperback).

Catch our original BBC Television story here - on Palast's brand new YouTube channel.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:23 pm**

Thanks, J-Heel. As I suggested, keeping track of ALL the slimey illegal machinations of this (unelected) administration is damned near impossible by one's self.

Here's some more:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/ion/ ... letin/6961

Wolfowitz, being the slimiest of the Neocon ZioNazis, and Bush inner-circle war-monger, has cashed in his World Bank presidency for some Arab pussy! What a world!

http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6175935.html

Rove, the bottom-bitch moral leper who is referred to as "Bush's Brain" is being slowly dragged from his lair, no doubt hissing and clawing. It's called Destroying Evidence, and it's a serious crime.

WAR White House Frog Marches

Posted: **Tue May 01, 2007 6:02 pm**

UPDATE

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... -a_section

Okay, standard pussy-mongering among the D.C. swine, this time it's Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias, family man, etc. Rice reportedly "adored" him, blah, blah

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00499.html
George Tenet, report to the gallows to be hanged for treason. Apparently the absurd neocon blindness of these vile criminals does not allow him to appreciate the astonishing revelation in his mea culpa that his "Slam Dunk" statement did not apply to the evidence for Saddam having WMDs, but rather for the administration's ability to "sell" the invasion to the American public. Blindfold? Any last words?

Proceed with the execution!!

Posted: **Tue May 01, 2007 6:39 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Any last words?

"Slam dunk"

Sincerely,
George Tenet

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 4:37 pm**

Rather than start a whole new thread on this...

http://thehill.com/david-keene/feinstei ... 04-30.html

Feinstein’s Cardinal shenanigans
By David Keene
April 30, 2007
Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.

The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”

And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.

This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.

During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.

In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 5:32 pm**

She is also known to carry a HIDDEN GUN... A HANDGUN, no less.

It's probably even LOADED... with REAL BULLETS.

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 10:55 pm**

Jew crooks playing the American taxpayers like the suckers they are.

How shocking.

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2007 11:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote: It's called Destroying Evidence, and it's a serious crime.
Unless, of course, your name is Sandy Berger. Then it's really no big deal at all.

He didn't destroy any evidence. He lost it.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 1:17 am**

mvscal wrote:No, he "accidently" shredded it at home.

That'll happen.

Sin,
Fawn Hall

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2007 2:55 pm**

Are you suggesting a round of Iran-Contra style hearings to look into the Sandy Burglar case, Diego?

Good idea

Posted: **Sat May 05, 2007 8:41 pm**

Yes, Berger needs a new necktie, though the criminality of the Clinton gang was not even close to the current cabal. What was it again? A BJ? Anything else actually documented or proved?

As for DiFI, most folks outside the City know very little about her. Suffice to say that in a town where the GOP simply doesn't exist (no republican mayor ever, for example), a rising politician like DiFi would naturally have to run as a nominal democrat. And when DiFi was just a housewife running for the rather provincial S.F. Board of Supervisors, she had no problem "being" a democrat. Then, with her totally unexpected installation as mayor, following the Moscone assassination, she did have some rather serious problems fronting as a demo. In fact she was publically humiliated by the powerful gay coalition by being forced to fend off a recall election--the gay coalition further twisted the knife by submitting the recall petition under the auspices of the "gray panthers," a kindly group of cantankerous coots. She won, but the gloves were off. She then lost her run for governor and accepted instead the senate seat. And except for her pro-choice position, she is for all intents and purposes a republican. Moreover, she is a hardcore lockstep supporter of the moral cesspool known as Israel. And with AIPAC supporting you with all of their vile machinations, you can get away with all manner of corruption, etc. And of course, AIPAC wants the continued despoilment of any and all Arab nations.

Posted: **Sat May 05, 2007 10:31 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yes, Berger needs a new necktie, though the criminality of the Clinton gang was not even close to the current cabal. What was it again? A BJ? Anything else actually documented or proved?

Since you asked.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 4:58 pm**

Sure, Dio, but the problem is that the "book" you cite is nothing more than the standard "swiftboat" rightwing nut job smear antics favored by such bottom-feeding scum as Rusp Limpdick, et al. Got anything else? Why not accuse Bubba of "giving away" the Panama Canal to the wily Chinks?

Stick with the overwhelming criminality of the current (unelected) cabal. Your efforts will pay off with higher quality information.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 5:03 pm**

Amazing.

Sarkozy kicks the living shitout of the Socialists and LTS TARD 2 has yet to seek out the nearest shower rod.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 5:47 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Sure, Dio, but the problem is that the "book" you cite is nothing more than the standard "swiftboat" rightwing nut job smear antics favored by such bottom-feeding scum as Rusp Limpdick, et al.

What you asked was...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Anything else actually documented or proved?

The book in question is extremly well documented, and if you actually read it you would know that. But then you don't care about actual criminality, just ideological bullshit. Of course the actual nutjob smear tactics are used by fanatical losers like you smearing books you've never read and groups like the SVFT out of you irrational hatred for GWB.

And BTW, it wasn't a BJ. It was perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. Not that these crimes are anywhere near as serious as giving military technology to the PRC while recieving illegal campaign contributions from them, of course...

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 8:39 pm**

Will Bush steal artwork and furniture from the White House on his way out the door???

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 10:04 pm**

Diogenes wrote:And BTW, it wasn't a BJ. It was perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.

ABOUT a blowjob.

Bottom line - Clinton was a scumbag who preyed upon a starry-eyed intern, abused his position as her boss and President and violated his marital oaths.

The GOP twisting of his adultery into a prosecutable offense by putting him in the position of perjuring himself ABOUT his sexual acts (which, AFAIK, were not prosecutable) was ridiculous. Trying to twist his lying, even under oath, about a frigging blowjob, etc. into a Nixonian abuse of power and criminality is just the height of stupidity.

Especially since the scumbag in question did so many OTHER things that deserved the attention of legal folks and the American public.

Diogenes wrote:Not that these crimes are anywhere near as serious as giving military technology to the PRC while recieving illegal campaign contributions from them, of course...

Perfect example. Totally agree with you.

Clinton was a danger to civil liberties, abused his power when in office, and yet, he is inexplicably worshipped by leftists who give him a "pass" on his expansion of governmental power and abuse of women.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 11:54 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And BTW, it wasn't a BJ. It was perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.
ABOUT a blowjob.

Bottom line - Clinton was a scumbag who preyed upon a starry-eyed intern, abused his position as her boss and President and violated his marital oaths.

No, he was a serial sexual predator and rapist who lied under oath and pressured others to do the same for his personal benefit. And it was James Reno who quashed the investigation into his PRC dealings and refused to allow a special prosecuter to indict on those charges. There would have been no way to minimize or spin that shit into being 'about a blowjob'.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 11:56 pm**

Neely8 wrote:Will Bush steal artwork and furniture from the White House on his way out the door???

Hey Neely...did you hear that McDonald's burger patties are made of ground up earthworms?

Or that Captain Kangaroo was the bravest guy at Iwo Jima?

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 11:57 pm**

Diogenes wrote:No, he was a serial sexual predator and rapist

Might wanna LINK that one on up, tard.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 12:13 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No, he was a serial sexual predator and rapist

Might wanna LINK that one on up, tard.

The first part is common knowledge, for the second just google Juanita Broaddrick.

Idiot.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 12:15 am**

:bigshocker: that when asked to provide at least some scrap of evidence to support your allegations of a person being a "sexual predator," you pull a no-show...:bigshocker:

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 12:39 am**

Diogenes wrote: just google Juanita Broaddrick.

Help me find my keys and we can drive out[/blondiebabe]

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 12:42 am**

Dinsdale wrote::bigshocker: that when asked to provide at least some scrap of evidence to support your allegations of a person being a "sexual predator," you pull a no-show...:bigshocker:

What do you want, a list of names? Do your own research, loser. Like I said, his perjury, subornation, and his history of sexual harrasment is minor compared with him selling our national security to the PRC.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 1:17 am**

Uhm, at least one name of an alleged "victim" of the "sexual predator," that's actually backed up by some sort of credible evidence would be a start.

And YOU made the allegations. The onus is on YOU to back up your statements, or retract them...that's how life works...sorry to be the one to have to tell you.

Speaking of "doing your own research," you might wanna check into the definition of "perjury." And then explain how gack on a dress, or any consentual contact between Bubba and that woman, Miss Lewisnky, was material to a lawsuit that got tossed out for being frivolous in the first place. I'll give you a hint -- if a case gets tossed for having no merit, NO testimony in it was "material." You're welcome.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 3:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Speaking of "doing your own research," you might wanna check into the definition of "perjury." And then explain how gack on a dress, or any consentual contact between Bubba and that woman, Miss Lewisnky, was material to a lawsuit that got tossed out for being frivolous in the first place. I'll give you a hint -- if a case gets tossed for having no merit, NO testimony in it was "material." You're welcome.
The case wasn't tossed. It was settled for $850,000, dumbfuck.

It was tossed first. Jones decided to appeal that decision, and while the appeal was pending, the case settled.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Clinton was a scumbag who preyed upon a starry-eyed intern, . . .

By her own statements, she was the aggressor, at least initially.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2007 4:09 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Clinton was a scumbag who preyed upon a starry-eyed intern, . . .
By her own statements, she was the aggressor, at least initially.

Sorry, but no one with a functioning synapse who isn't also taken in by the alleged "Clinton mystique" is buying that load of horseshit.

He was over twice her age (with all the experience and maturity that assumes), married, and her boss. He was college educated, was a lawyer, had a political career including a governorship, and was the sitting leader of the free world. She was a 21-year-old intern. He knew damned well that he was using his power and influence over a subordinate in an inappropriate way.

There is no way in hell that Clinton was in any way, shape, or form an innocent party. He knew damned well what he was doing, could easily have done what any decent married guy should have done, and because he decided NOT to, deserves every bit of public moral disgust that came his way.

T1B

Chimp Gang Crime Update:

Chimp Gang Crime Update: